Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Gad Saad interviews Bruce Bawer

Gad Saad interviews Bruce Bawer in the video below, the author of numerous books, including The Victims’ Revolution: The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind (2012).

Bruce Bawer’s The Victims’ Revolution: The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind (2012) is an excellent work examining the rise of Postmodernism in the academy and its development into the Social Justice Warrior (or SJW) catastrophe we see today. I highly recommend this book, even though various criticisms can be made of it, and Bawer doesn’t seem to have a very good understanding of economics.

32 comments:

@9:30ish - I stopped listening. He's highly ignorant if he doesn't know that at least 2 Republican administrations conducted studies that showed the reason for Muslims hating the US had to do with our expansionist policies and destabilization efforts in cahoots with Israel. Not worth my time.

Yes, the reports you mention explain **some** of the hatred. No doubt.

But you seriously think this also explains the serious problems in Europe with many people from such communities failing to assimilate? With their demands for shariah? And the illegal and regressive social opinions?

Is the practice of female genital mutilation from within these communities caused by hatred of Israel or the Jews?

You need to get your head out of the sand, Kevin. It's typical of the regressive left: if you disagree with someone, you won't listen at all and just scream abuse.

But you seriously think this also explains the serious problems in Europe with many people from such communities failing to assimilate?

Why not put the blame on that exactly where it belongs: Western interference in the Middle East driving people out of their lifelong cultures into places where they aren't welcomed.

With their demands for shariah

Is that really it, or are they simply wanting a paralegal citizen's court system in order to be able to settle differences according to their belief system? An example of that might be where a woman needs to be granted a divorce, and must go through the "elders" to prove adultery. Would you rather she just up and get a divorce through the local legal system and risk retaliation, or wouldn't it be better that she is allowed to settle differences peacefully. I believe the US has a similar system for Native American tribes.

Is the practice of female genital mutilation from within these communities caused by hatred of Israel or the Jews?

Can I ask what this has to do with the topic at hand? The time stamp I cited had to do with a basic denial that Western interference and violation of international law can ever have anything to do with the reaction of a particular Muslim or group of Muslims. My response is to that alone. I can't help it of someone wakes up cranky in the morning or cheats on his taxes irrespective of conflicts with other cultures. My point is to address the canard that someone wakes up one day and decides to hate Americans just on a lark for what it is: A Canard.

regressive left

LOL Nope, you won't pin that go-to handle on me, you don't know me well enough. And I might ask you: Why is only female genital mutilation a bad thing and an indication of a barbaric culture? Do not young boys have a right to self-determination in that area as well?

It's not an "argument" Kevin. I have seen some of your other comments. It is an observation. 'Cahoots'is a tendentious word. If I wrote "Kevin spewed forth another of his opinions" I think you could read something into my choice of verb; same principle.

"Why is only female genital mutilation a bad thing and an indication of a barbaric culture? Do not young boys have a right to self-determination in that area as well?"

Yep. This is proof of how grotesque people like you really are.

We are not talking about a sterile operation of circumcision in a hospital by doctors with anaesthetic (ideally done when boys are old enough to give clear consent), but brutal FGM done without consent of a child often with blunt razors, knives and without anaesthetic. And it involves removal of the clitoris, and sometimes inner labia, other times infibulation.

1.as a person who know enough people here in the middle east who are atheists liberal muslims christians druzi (its including turkish people iranian people arabic people from countries like syria saudi arabia egypt and etc)

and i found out by conversations with them that mostly their position about usa is ranging from

A.i dont care about usa

B.i want to live there

the people i found that hate usa are mostly religious muslims so my question to you will be how is that the main haters of united states are religious muslims (which belong to not moderate liberal movements but to more conservative ones),while other people which live in the same place in the middle east dont feel the same hatered toward american interventionism?

2.efforts of destablization by usa? well i will tell you something the efforts of saudi arabia and qatar to spread for 30-40 radical version of islam on demographically young unemployed population with no hope for future been way more devastating along with the revolution in iran in 1979 than even the american invasion into iraq.

even if there been no american invasion in 2001 which of course been a mistake i dont sure that saddam were staying in power after 2011 when the arab spring started like how assad dont managed to stay in power.

3.american efforts to support so called democratic forces failed no matter how much money and weapons you give to so called secular democratic forces they will always be weaker than the jihadists?

and why because there is consensus which support this jihadi groups because if the consensus of the arab people been secular liberal democracy in this case jihadi groups been way smaller than the democratic forces but its vice versa and this islamic forces conquer every country where a dictator fall from lybia to iraq syria yemen saudi arabia iran and etc.

if the consensus of the people dont supported radical islamism its had no enough men and support to oppose this secular democratic forces but the situation as i already said in the middle east is going vice versa.

4.about evil Israel which destabilize the region well to be honest i dont see how israel benefit from that.

i will ask you a question from what will israel benefit more from liberal democratic middle east which not a threat to israel or radical islamic middle east which will in the end attack israel with all of its power?

think about this question and try to understand from what evil israel will benefit more?

so my question to you will be how is that the main haters of united states are religious muslims (which belong to not moderate liberal movements but to more conservative ones),while other people which live in the same place in the middle east dont feel the same hatered toward american interventionism

This question assumes that terrorist organizations such as ISIS are motivated by religion. AFAIK, that is not the case.

the efforts of saudi arabia and qatar to spread for 30-40 radical version of islam on demographically young unemployed population with no hope for future been way more devastating along with the revolution in iran in 1979 than even the american invasion into iraq

Do feel free leave out the fact that you've just mentioned 2 US/Israeli allies. That can't have anything to do with it.

i will ask you a question from what will israel benefit more from liberal democratic middle east which not a threat to israel or radical islamic middle east which will in the end attack israel with all of its power

I will simply put this question back in your lap: Why was Netanyahu all hopped up for the US to invade Iraq? In fact, why has Israel never called the US out on policies that never seem to do anything else but destabilize and make the regions worse than before? After all, their safety is at stake!

think about this question and try to understand from what evil israel will benefit more

Not a matter of what they'll benefit more from, but what policies are they actively pursuing. Look up the Yinon plan.

1.well thats new because what else will motivate radical jihadi organizations if not religious motives?

2.qatar and saudi arabia are not allies of israel and been allies of the united states only because of saudi and qatari oiland gaz reserves.

its have nothing to do with the active funding of radical ideology and even terror groups which is hostile toward united states and israel,and ideology which want to destroy both of this countries.

the coperation with saudi arabia been because of its oil if we are speaking about usa,and because of the worrying power of another israeli arch nemesis which is iran.

but tactical coperation because of economic interests/coperation against common enemy have nothing to do with being a supporter of saudi arabian regime and its ideology which always worked against both countries.

3.because iraq been a really hostile country toward israel and even sent missiles against israel in 1991,so netanyahu mistakely thought like the american adminstration in united states that invasion of iraq will solve the problem and actually will stabilize the region less stabilized region ruled by radical islamic forces will be no better than stable dictatorship with rusty weapons for israel actually the first scenario of radical islamic terrorists will be even worse way worse than secular dictatorships with old rusty weapons.

3.because in 2001 iraq been really hostile country toward israel and nobody in israel or usa predicted that the popular support of the local population of radical islamic forces is so big.

because of all of the theories of democratic peace theory and the illusion of the west (and left wingers also btw) that all the nations looking for secular liberal democracy which protect its citizens human rights and its the best system for every culture and nation in the world.

thats why netanyahu like bush and others fall in the trap and tried to stabilize the region with invasion of iraq by creating something that eisenhower called the domino effect.

4.yinon plan is just a conspiracy no better than protocols of elders of zion

there is no mention of it in wikipedia or in any reliable source only in a badshit crazy unrealible site called globalresearch.org

which criticized even by progressive site called rationalwiki (its says something about the reliability).

so pls no more conspiracy theories or the site you should speak on is the site i gave you or the site of alex jones.

We are not talking about a sterile operation of circumcision in a hospital by doctors with anaesthetic (ideally done when boys are old enough to give clear consent), but brutal FGM done without consent of a child often with blunt razors, knives and without anaesthetic. And it involves removal of the clitoris, and sometimes inner labia, other times infibulation.

(1) if you had bothered to read above, I already made it quite clear I do not support circumcision of young children. Consent is necessary, the older the better. I would say at 16 actually.

Religious obscurantism cuts no ice with me.

(2) "How do you propose we implement your quixotic crusade to straighten out "the heathen" and get them to act like civilized Westerners like you want them to be?"

Yeah, that is just a B.S. straw man from a loud mouth ass. I am not advocating forcing people in the third world by military force to adopt our ways. However, *within* any Western country we should clearly have laws against such cruelty.

(3) you've not addressed my argument about the cruel circumstances of FGM.

and i think LK will agree with me when people immigrate to western countries they should make their traditions and values more in line with with liberal values and to create some liberal tolerant version of their traditions and customs.

not erase their identity not deny their religion but make it more liberal and tolerant.

and if they are not accepting this terms if they continue to despise liberal values and clearly reject them i think that moderate right and left wingers should strongly criticize this people in the same way Post modernists do crusades against homophobes chauvinsts racists and islamophobes (of course not by imposing something by laws but by shuning this traditions and culture out of consensus) and finally stopping whitewash extremist views and extremist crimes just because they represent (actually misrepresent) this immigrant culture/religion/customs.

and if some of this immigrants establish fundamental and militant groups which want to impose their culture on western populations this groups should be taken care of by the police.

thats what as i believe LK meant not to do neocon crusades in the middle east or in other places on the globe.

Yeah, that is just a B.S. straw man from a loud mouth ass. I am not advocating forcing people in the third world by military force to adopt our ways. However, *within* any Western country we should clearly have laws against such cruelty

And I never insisted otherwise...Nor would I.

The Saad strawman argument put forth by Gad as I understood it, is that the "liberals" who question if there's not a source behind Arab-nations anger are "praying at the altar of self-flagellation." Yeah, I'm self-flagellating alright. I'm doing it asking how stupid society is to keep electing leaders willing to shed their young men's blood over military adventurism that has yet to produce a better outcome than if things were just left the hell alone.

Which brings me to your 2) re FGM. What do you think should concretely be done about it?

but radical islamization of the middle east which started to happen since the 70-s 80-s because of demographic issues (high birth rates for the majority sunnis and low birth rates for the rest more educated civilized minorities).

(and high amount of young population)

economic (economic stagnation in the arab world and really high inequality)

and religious (saudi arabia and qatar spended billions of billions of dollars on radical islamic teachings and even terror organizations as well as the iranian regime).

mixture of all 3 did the lethal cocktail which we call the middle east and the arab spring.

Already told you above: make it illegal when done on children and prosecute.

"Gad as I understood it, is that the "liberals" who question if there's not a source behind Arab-nations anger are "praying at the altar of self-flagellation."

And I already conceded above he's wrong on foreign policy not being at least one important source of the hostility. But it hardly explains the severe problems of assimilation in Europe and other countries. But you are too stupid to meet me halfway.

So in getting back to the point you say I won't meet you halfway on: Is your contention that FGM is being practiced among immigrants of Middle-Eastern origin while in the context of living in a Western Democracy? If that's the case, then of course the laws need to be enforced equally and fairly.

I didn't hear you however, address the issue of using citizen courts in order to be able to be granted a divorce in the context of an Islamic belief-system that only allows it in certain circumstances. Unfortunately, you can't beng heads together and go "all you kiddies assimilate, now!" Long-held beliefs don't move because of something written on parchment somewhere, and if society is going to demand that Muslims change on that score, it seems hypocritical that they don't also go around demanding the Catholic church grant divorces to whomever asks for them.

I take a pretty hard-nosed approach to steering clear of ethnocentric assumptions about "superiority" of one culture over another that gets me in trouble with people of several political stripes, but its because I have in view the sheer inhumanity of forced regime change and force belief change at the tip of a sword.

It's interesting that you parked on FGM as an issue, because part of my gripe is that stoking chivalrous flames are what leads to war. There's every indication that in the same cultures, being a man is not so fun either. But no one wants to talk about those things.

If immigrants are mutilating girls, that's something I haven't heard of. But of course in order to be fair, society needs to push for elimination of MGM in western cultures as well.

"if society is going to demand that Muslims change on that score, it seems hypocritical that they don't also go around demanding the Catholic church grant divorces to whomever asks for them."

Ridiculous comment. No church grants a divorce, the state does. A divorce is a legal thing, with ramifications for child support and alimony and legal remarriage, and we are talking about the law here. The same law already applies to catholics as to me. A catholic can still be legally compelled to pay child support, and cannot legally debar a divorced spouse from remarrying. The church's position on divorce has no legal force.